> > 1) I'd like my name kept out of subject lines please. > > OK, done.
:-) > > > ... Then, once there are features in those containers that have > > > withstood the tests of real-life deployment, should the features be > > > merged back into framework and the reference container. > > > > I disagree. We should keep the ref very light. I buy the idea > > of "not intended for real deployments". > > What I mean is that if the features result in additional > framework interfaces, there should be a reference implementation > for them. > > This reference impl need not be heavy. (Consider > DefaultComponentManager). Yup. That's just one part of the ref impl..... or at least what should be the complete mainable() ref impl. On that note we previously voted on whether to split avalon-framework.jar into two* -> avalon-framework-api.jar and avalon-framework-refimpl.jar. Can someone run thru the votes and see if we got majority. It was a week ago I think. Can't do it myself as on webmail presently. Maybe it needs crisping up a little bit before enacting. * plus the current fat jar for back-compat. -ph __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
